No. It is the best option. It sounds natural, it covers all the bases, it captures the multiplicity and ambiguity inherent in any individual, and it's already in common use.

The war is on.

It doesn't sound natural to me, it sounds informal at best and confusing at worst.

And the purpose of a pronoun isn't to "capture the multiplicity and ambiguity inherent in any individual", it's to allow you to keep referencing an individual without having to say the person's name over and over again.

There was never any problem with just using "he" for a person of undetermined gender until some people decided to start getting offended. Sparing peoples' sensitivities is not a good reason to remove clarity and efficiency from our language.

It doesn't sound natural to me, it sounds informal at best and confusing at worst.

And the purpose of a pronoun isn't to "capture the multiplicity and ambiguity inherent in any individual", it's to allow you to keep referencing an individual without having to say the person's name over and over again.

There was never any problem with just using "he" for a person of undetermined gender until some people decided to start getting offended. Sparing peoples' sensitivities is not a good reason to remove clarity and efficiency from our language.

I have never yet encountered a real-life situation in which it is problematic or confusing to say "they" in reference to a person of indeterminate gender.

Too bad, Lady Une. You were far too lenient.As a soldier, yes. But as a civilian I lived an austere life.

Which would imply that interpersonal communication, as a rule, is pointless. Hard to poke holes in that.

All I meant to imply is that it's your fault for not getting it and not mine for how I presented it :P. I'm not taking this all that seriously, I know we've had the singular they argument before and realistically, what's at the heart of the debate is personal preference.